Talk:Spell changes (Community Patch Project)
Balance, features, and "fixes" Can anyone provide any insight into what sort of logic led to the current division of changes into "Balance changes", "New Features", and "Spell Fixes"? For example, why is changing the range of a spell a "new feature" instead of a "balance change"? --The Krit 16:54, January 4, 2012 (UTC) * While looking into this question, I decided to take a closer look at the "new features" section. That section claims that most of the changes in it are "to make the casting of these spells more user friendly". I see 14 things listed, and of them only one has any relation to the casting of a spell (making meteor swarm self-targeting). Should I chalk this up as completely disorganized documentation and just trash the current organization? --The Krit 00:38, January 21, 2012 (UTC) *Why should be the increasing the range you can cast the spell balance change? It does not changes the game balance in any way, it's just more friendly to the players. Reason why I changed this is because there is a correlation between spells's aoe range (colossal in this case) and spell's casting range - which in this case weren't kept. Look into 2DA. As far as other spell related, I will post some formal arguments and facts that led me to propose these changes as fixes, new features or balance changes. No doubt, that some of these spells fall more likely into other category (as per your current arrangement), but not all of them in my opinion. CPCreator 19:08, November 12, 2012 (UTC) :* Increasing the range means that the caster can stay in a safer location (further from combat) when casting the spell on someone involved in combat. It is more friendly to the players if they are casting the spell, less friendly if an opponent is casting it. It changes the balance of the game. (Why do you think there are ranges for spells in the first place? If spell range had no impact on game balance, there would be no reason to bother implementing shorter ranges for some spells.) --The Krit (talk) 00:56, November 13, 2012 (UTC) ::* Speaking of offensive spells, absolutely. But this is defensive spell you want to cast somewhere in the center of all your allies. Which with touch range means that character is running towards that place. As I said - there is certain correlation between spell range and area of effect. And based on this I decided it should have same range as mass camouflage which has same aoe and similar benefits. However, looking into the past, I don't think I noticed that the spell description states aoe as short - knowing this I would definitely corrected it per spell description. 02:14, November 13, 2012 (UTC) :::* Offensive/defensive does not matter. With a touch range, the caster will need to run towards the target, as you said. If this is done while the target (your allies in this case) is engaged in melee combat (as I had mentioned), that means running into that battle and being subject to attacks, particularly attacks of opportunity (running and casting can both trigger AoOs). With long range, the caster does not run into the battle so is not subject to the same attacks. Huge difference. In fact, with the range being long and duration being rounds, the spell will probably transform from a pre-battle buff to a mid-battle buff. Are you seriously going to try to claim that something that changes battle plans is not a change to balance? --The Krit (talk) 02:51, November 13, 2012 (UTC) ::::* It is not so riddiculous as you are suggesting. You are partially right, though this situation is rather theory than real. I actually played druid on several servers and never experienced this situation. Yes its mid-battle buff, but either you are using companions, which are always behind you until they see enemies, or alone. The area of effect is so big, that you and your companios will (practically) always be in effect. What can happen isn't that you run towards to the swarm of enemies, getting AoOs but that you unintentionally move from place you stand (situation: you are surrounded by one or two monsters which makes impossible to target self (and don't bother argumenting you can target spell on portrait, I know that), so you must target ground) losing benefits of expertise for example, but lets say AoO is factor too. Point is that this shouldn't happen - you did not want to cast it somewhere far from you, but *on* you. I said it three times and you always ignored this: there is certain correlation between area of effect height and spell range. Spells with larger aoe usually have larger range (as caster will be in effect anyway), same here, the spell should have short range not touch. 19:09, November 13, 2012 (UTC) :::::* Let me summarize the above: I am partially right, so you decided to stop arguing whether or not the change affects balance, instead focusing on whether or not some justification can be made for the change. Furthermore, you want to ignore the new possibilities you added (increasing the range) and assume that the player's only intended range is "personal". Looks like a clear attempt at misdirection and surrender. Time to go back to ignoring you until you demonstrate some sense. --The Krit (talk) 01:10, November 14, 2012 (UTC) ::::::* It is not me who is ignoring anything. Your point is correct, it might change "safety" of the caster who would in very specific case avoided running around creatures, getting AoO. You do however on purpose ignores my two main points. I don't think that a slight possibility of making the game easier makes this change balance change. Not in this case or even more ridiculous case of Imbue arrow which you also marked as balance change. To the rest of your response, I must say that your stand is really unproffesional (not to mention ridiculing and mocking me). As well as all of this when you are changing the articles, based on your personal opinion. 06:38, November 15, 2012 (UTC) :::::* Looking at this again, I suppose one explanation for the nonsense is an assumption that players never form parties with each other. If "companions" were replaced by "associates" (the latter implying AI-controlled), then the flow of some of the statements makes more sense (aside from the glaring omission of the possibility of playing with others, which opens up the possibility of companions who are not always behind you). Not much more sense, though, since multiplayer is a big part of the game. Plus the claim "actually played druid on several servers" suggests the multiplayer side of things was supposedly considered. Still not enough sense to lend any credence to. :::::: While I am at it, I will grant someone's request that I not ignore the stupid repetition of some supposed correlation between range and area size. Fine, I'll acknowledge it as an example of the ridiculous misdirection being employed here. If such a correlation exists (I do not recall BioWare ever stating they intended a correlation), it is a balance guideline; it would be used to justify balancing decisions. Any change that is justified on the basis of it would have to be a balance change. So: ::::::# Instead of dealing with a question of the classification of a change, you decided to delve into justifications for the change. ::::::# The justification you gave only applies to balance changes. ::::::# You concluded that since your change was justified (as a balance change), it cannot be a balance change. ??? :::::: This is such a totally illogical conclusion -- on top of the misdirection being employed in the first step -- that I thought it better to ignore it than to point out the lack of intelligent thought behind it. But someone insisted the nonsense be addressed. Don't worry. I will go back to ignoring the nonsense soon enough. The "companions -> associates" explanation just seemed to be significant enough to warrant mentioning here. --The Krit (talk) 19:28, December 10, 2012 (UTC) :::::* As I wrote above: your point is correct. That however doesn't mean this is balance change. By you logic, anything that might affect gameplay is balance change. But that refers to every bugfix as well, so I ask you, are the changes such as fixing the animal companions fixes or balance changes? Only graphical corrections (such as adding missing ray vfx) and behind-scene corrections (such as signal event issues) could be marked as fixes as only these changes doesn't affect balance. The most markant example is Fire storm cap bug. Fixing this has tens as big impact on game balance than increasing range of the spell - still is it game balance or bugfix? Same goes for "new features", if the change allows to use that ability in extraordinary way such as possibility to fire imbue arrow at location, especially if there is no reason why this shouldn't be possible, then the change isn't any more balance than in case of bugfix. :::::: In my understanding, its balance change when the intent is to balance the ability in question, either to improve it or weaken it from balance reasons. Thats also why I brought justification of this change into consideration. I believe it is not possible to look only into results, aka what this affect, but consider also intent and reasons for such change. -- 13:18, 1 January 2013 (UTC) Empowering greater ability boosts When I grouped the spells that have empowering affecting only the die roll, I included the "greater" ability boosters and dropped the note about "accidentally correct". Aside from the issue of what is correct, there is no reason for such a note. The BioWare version gives a boost of (2d4 + 1)×1.5, which can result in 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, or 13, while the CPP version gives a boost of (2d4)×1.5 + 1, which can result in 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, or 13. It's a different distribution, even though the high and low values are the same. --The Krit 21:33, January 21, 2012 (UTC) *You are right. CPCreator 18:41, November 12, 2012 (UTC) Armor? "All weapon/armor boosts - Blackstaff, Darkfire, Deafning Clang, Bless Weapon, Flame weapon, Keen, Holy sword, Magic weapon, Greater magic weapon, Blade thirst, Bless (if cast on bolts)" I see no armor boosts in this list, so I am dropping that word. --The Krit 22:06, February 15, 2012 (UTC) *Its there indeed, just forget to write it into the list. CPCreator 18:36, November 12, 2012 (UTC) Magic vestment Yes, the script for magic vestment is clearly not written correctly. However, the spell does not mention the ability to target an item by targeting the creature using it, much less how it would choose between armor and shield in that case. The only way to tell that such a feature was intended at some point is by looking at the script. Emphasis on "at some point". BioWare has changed their minds about many things over the years. If they changed their minds about including this feature, they likely would try it out in-game before turning to the script. Seeing that the feature was already disabled, they would have no reason to edit the feature out of the script. On the other hand, if this feature was still desired by the time the game got to QA, someone in the QA department should have noticed the feature was not working. Or after the game's release, a player should have noticed the feature was not working. Not all bugs get noticed, but the more likely scenario is that the feature was not considered part of the released game. For that reason, I am moving magic vestment back to "new features". (Which really should sit better with the project's author, since coming up with new features is usually a bigger accomplishment than fixing a bug. Then again, I've learned to not trust the author's judgment, so maybe it is backwards on this point as well.) --The Krit (talk) 16:32, December 8, 2012 (UTC) *I will make a comparsion with other broken "features" in other spell scripts. For example, the immuniy of incorporeal creatures to various entangle spells. This feature is also not mentioned in spell's descriptions and since it doesn't work, you could come to the same conclusion right? But you didn't. The code inside x2_inc_itemprop is clear in how the shield should be targetted, only a typo defend the correct behavior which is "when character is targetted and not wearing armor, target shield, if any". Argumenting that bioware would notice this anrd fixed this, when there is so many bugs, overlooks and typos in other spells, many of them even more noticeable than this (dmg cap at fire storm for example) is really poor argument. Its clear that Bioware didn't noticed many of these bugs, or if they did and I believe I was reporting some of those still unfixed issues at that time, they simply didn't managed to fix them in oficial patches. For that reason I believe you are wrong. 13:04, December 16, 2012 (UTC) :* Correct, I could come to the same conclusions about incorporeal creatures. Correct, I did not come to that conclusion when I thought the immunity was working. Wrong if you leave out "when I thought the immunity was working", which you did leave out. So you are, as usual, wrong. I still see insufficient reason to devalue this change by demoting it from "new feature" to "bug fix". --The Krit (talk) 00:13, January 13, 2013 (UTC) ::* Exactly, you can't see it. Its not like a correcting a some PW informations that doesn't match reality such as max level. You shouldn't change informations based on your own opinion, but you constantly are. 03:43, January 13, 2013 (UTC) * And one more reason to prove my point. I know it won't persuade you, nothing can because you would have to admint you we're wrong, which you never do. But for everyone else following this discussion the magic vestment is not the only one spell that boost items equipped on character. The weapon boost spells also does this. For weapon spells this is what happens when cast on character: # item in right hand is located, if there is no item or the item is not a melee weapon then proceed # item in left hand is located, if there is no item or the item is not a melee weapon then proceed # item in creature right weapon slot is located, if there is no item proceed # item in creature bite weapon slot is located, if there is no item end the spell with error : So this feature is not unique to the magic vestment, it only check for item in chest slot and if not valid or armor then the item in left hand is located, but instead of this item is checked to be valid/shield this check is done against object the spell was cast at (player). Identical to the weapon behavior, except of this bug... 01:39, January 14, 2013 (UTC) :* Step #2 never does anything (without custom base items). Steps #3 and 4 rarely affect player characters. So basically, as far as players notice, this process is step #1, which is documented in the spell descriptions of blade thirst, darkfire, and greater magic weapon. There is also flame weapon, which mentions targeting a creature without specifying which weapon gets enchanted in that case. None of these spells mention being able to target creature weapons, so if that part wasn't working (and it is not if a creature has only a left creature weapon) then there would be no reason for a player to suspect that such a feature feature was intended. Just like there is no reason for a player to suspect that targeting magic vestment on a creature might enchant the creature's shield. There are times when I admit being wrong. I just have many, many fewer instances of being wrong than you. --The Krit (talk) 20:53, January 30, 2013 (UTC) :* Yes step 2 happens only when target have item that is not considered weapon in hand, such as lance, trumpet or mon-of-the-stick. Or any custom base item. Step 3 and 4 works for associates a player can have, animal companion, familiars, summons or polymorphed player character. So you want to say that if player doesn't notices this in vanilla game it doesn't exists? Thats a good logic indeed. Nevermind. When categorizating changes, what I came out from is a rule of thumb "it's not a new feature, if its already there". I don't think you should reorder this based on your feeling of whats new feature and whats bugfix but do what you have to do. 22:12, January 30, 2013 (UTC) Spell engine fixes and advantages The article says there is no documentation as of which issues the new spell engine fixes, and thats correct, it is not. But on numerous questions, I decided to clarify this. Don't blame me if players start to abuse these issues and exploits. The new spell "engine" fixes these issues: #zero caster level (just a sanity check actually, I haven't found a situation this could happen in vanilla, maybe when multiclassed character is drained with all spellcasting levels?) #DC bug with negative ability score and spell-like abilities #Metamagic issue with spells cast from items such as potions - when the spell is cast from items metamagic value is not reinitialized and remains in value of last normal cast spell which can be abused to extend short spells from potions. #Metamagic exploit that allows to cast spell without having the needed metamagic feat. (mostly exploited by players in rakshasa polymorph where is easy to take empower metamagic, setup quickslots and delevel) note. this has been added in 1.71beta #Fix for GetSpellId() in AOE spells. #Spell values in AOE spells will use the values in the time of casting and not latests. #Fix for AOE heartbeat issue in module where this is not working (not automatic, must be toggled on by builder). (while this is not exactly incorporated in the spellsDeclareMajorVariables or aoesDeclareMajorVariables functions, its in the function that is used to setup new AOE objects which is part of the new spell engine itself) A fix for dispelling AOE objects might also justify (since the variable is set up in AOE setup part), but since its non functional without dispel spells changed, I guess that not. Advantages of the new spell engine: #More readable and easy to use framework; easy access to all spell informations without need to declare them. #Easy to incorporate any global change or feature such as spell DC calculation change. CPCreator 12:00, February 1, 2013 (UTC)